> If you rewrite half of the equation to be about real losses There is nothing in need of rewrite. The original claim was about money, not currency. As money i

> If you rewrite half of the equation to be about real losses There is nothing in need of rewrite. The original claim was about money, not currency. As money is defined as the assets, property, or resources owned by someone (i.e. wealth), we can substitute currency with any other asset. Let's use cars, as is convention, and works well as they tend to decline in value much like currency does. So, you trade your car for a security. Some years go by and you decide you want a car again, track down the guy who you sold your car to, and offer to trade the security back for the car. He agrees and now you've got your car back. You didn't lose any cars. You are back to one car, just like you had originally. However, the car is scratched up a little, needs new tires, etc. and as such isn't worth as much as it was when you first traded it. And so, while you haven't lost any cars, you have lost money. The car isn't what it used to be; your wealth has declined. You might not lose any currency in an exchange of assets, you might even gain currency in the deal, but that doesn't necessarily mean you haven't lost money.